DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplementary Information for Wedgefishes (Rhinidae) and Giant Guitarfishes (Glaucostegidae)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplementary Information for Wedgefishes (Rhinidae) and Giant Guitarfishes (Glaucostegidae) Supplementary Information for wedgefishes (Rhinidae) and giant guitarfishes (Glaucostegidae) Generation lengths There is a general lack of age and growth data for wedgefishes (Rhinidae) and giant guitarfishes (Glaucostegidae). Maximum age given by White et al. (2014) for female Rhynchobatus spp. (mixed samples of R. australiae and R. palpebratus) was 12 years. However, this figure alone is not useful to estimate generation length as White et al. (2014) did not provide female age at maturity, and the maximum age estimate was for a 183 cm total length (TL) individual, whereas R. palpebratus grows to 262 cm TL and R. australiae to ~300 cm TL (Last et al. 2016). To provide a more realistic generation length estimate for large rhinid species as well as large glaucostegid species (those species reaching ≥200 cm TL), data can be used from White et al. (2014) for the Giant Guitarfish (Glaucostegus typus): • Female age at maturity: 7 years (taken from the growth curve) • Female maximum age: 19 years (for a 250 cm TL individual which is under but close to the maximum size of 270 cm TL; Last et al. 2016) • Calculated generation length: 13 years • Estimated generation length: 15 years (to account for the larger maximum size of the species compared with the largest individual aged) For Glaucostegus cemiculus, Enajjar et al. (2012) found a female age at maturity of 5.1 years, and a maximum age of 14 years, which gives a generation length of 9.5 years. The largest specimen examined in this study was 198 cm TL, while the species reaches a maximum size of 265 cm TL; 9.5 years would therefore be an underestimate of generation length. To ensure consistency across assessments, 15 years was applied as an estimated generation length to large (≥200 cm TL) rhinid and glaucostegid species, and 10 years was applied to smaller species (<200 cm TL) (Table 1). Table 1. Estimated generation lengths for wedgefishes (Rhinidae) and giant guitarfishes (Glaucostegidae). Maximum Size Estimated Estimated 3 Family Species (cm total length) Generation Generation Length (years) Lengths (years) Rhinidae Rhina ancylostoma 270 15 45 Rhinidae Rhynchobatus australiae 300 15 45 Rhinidae Rhynchobatus cooki 81 10 30 Rhinidae Rhynchobatus djiddensis 310 15 45 Rhinidae Rhynchobatus immaculatus 99* 10 30 Rhinidae Rhynchobatus laevis 200 15 45 Rhinidae Rhynchobatus luebberti 300 15 45 Rhinidae Rhynchobatus palpebratus 262 15 45 Rhinidae Rhynchobatus springeri 213 15 45 Rhinidae Rhynchorhina mauritaniensis 275 15 45 Glaucostegidae Glaucostegus cemiculus 265 15 45 Glaucostegidae Glaucostegus granulatus 229 15 45 Glaucostegidae Glaucostegus halavi 187 10 30 Glaucostegidae Glaucostegus obtusus 93 10 30 Glaucostegidae Glaucostegus thouin 300 15 45 Glaucostegidae Glaucostegus typus 270 15 45 *Immature male; maximum size suspected to be ~150 cm total length. Population reduction calculations Table 2. Proportional decline over 3 generation lengths (30–45 years) for wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes for Iran. Landings data are for the category ‘giant guitarfish’ which likely includes all rhinids and glaucostegids occurring locally, including Bowmouth Guitarfish (Rhina ancylostoma), Bottlenose Wedgefish (Rhynchobatus australiae), Whitespotted Wedgefish (R. djiddensis), Smoothnose Wedgefish (R. laevis), Sharpnose Guitarfish (Glaucostegus granulatus), and Halavi Guitarfish (G. halavi). Data source: FAO (2018). Year Landings (t) Year Landings (t) 1997 880 1997 880 2016 295 2016 295 Proportional decline over 20 years 0.665 0.665 Annual proportional change 0.947 0.947 Generation length (years) 10 15 3 generation lengths (3 GL; years) 30 45 Proportion remaining 0.194 0.086 Proportional decline over 3 GL 0.806 0.914 Table 3. Proportional decline over 3 generation lengths (30–45 years) for wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes for Sindh, Pakistan. Landings data are for the category ‘rhinobatid’ which likely includes all rhinids, glaucostegids, and rhinobatids occurring locally, including Bowmouth Guitarfish (Rhina ancylostoma), Bottlenose Wedgefish (Rhynchobatus australiae), Smoothnose Wedgefish (R. laevis), Sharpnose Guitarfish (Glaucostegus granulatus), Halavi Guitarfish (G. halavi), and Widenose Guitarfish (G. obtusus). Data source: Mauvis Gore, unpublished data. Year Landings (t) Year Landings (t) 1999 902 1999 902 2011 252 2011 252 Proportional decline over 13 years 0.720 0.720 Annual proportional change 0.907 0.907 Generation length (years) 10 15 3 generation lengths (3 GL; years) 30 45 Proportion remaining 0.053 0.012 Proportional decline over 3 GL 0.947 0.988 Table 4. Proportional decline over 3 generation lengths (30–45 years) for wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes for Balochistan, Pakistan. Landings data are for the category ‘rhinobatid’ which likely includes all rhinids, glaucostegids, and rhinobatids occurring locally, including Bowmouth Guitarfish (Rhina ancylostoma), Bottlenose Wedgefish (Rhynchobatus australiae), Smoothnose Wedgefish (R. laevis), Sharpnose Guitarfish (Glaucostegus granulatus), Halavi Guitarfish (G. halavi), and Widenose Guitarfish (G. obtusus). Data source: Mauvis Gore, unpublished data. Year Landings (t) Year Landings (t) 1994 921 1994 921 2011 178 2011 178 Proportional decline over 18 years 0.806 0.806 Annual proportional change 0.913 0.913 Generation length (years) 10 15 3 generation lengths (3 GL; years) 30 45 Proportion remaining 0.065 0.016 Proportional decline over 3 GL 0.935 0.984 Table 5. Proportional decline over 3 generation lengths (30–45 years) for wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes for Maharashtra, India. Catch rate data are for myliobatoid rays (stingrays, eagle rays, butterfly rays, and devil rays) and while it does not include wedgefishes or giant guitarfishes, this can be used to infer declines given overlapping distributions, habitat, and susceptibility to capture in the same fishing gear. Data source: Raje and Zacharia (2009). Catch rate Year Catch rate Year (kg/hr) (kg/hr) 1990 0.65 1990 0.65 2004 0.24 2004 0.24 Proportional decline over 15 years 0.631 0.631 Annual proportional change 0.936 0.936 Generation length (years) 10 15 3 generation lengths (3 GL; years) 30 45 Proportion remaining 0.136 0.050 Proportional decline over 3 GL 0.864 0.950 Table 6. Decline in landings of ‘guitarfishes’ from trawling in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. For rhinids, this grouping was reported to include Bowmouth Guitarfish (Rhina ancylostoma) and 'Rhynchobatus djiddensis'. The latter does not occur in the area, and hence the grouping would therefore include local ‘whitespotted wedgefish’ species i.e. Bottlenose Wedgefish (Rhynchobatus australiae) and Smoothnose Wedgefish (R. laevis). For glaucostegids, this grouping was reported to include Sharpnose Guitarfish (Glaucostegus granulatus) and Widenose Guitarfish (G. obtusus) but was also likely to include Giant Guitarfish (G. typus) and Clubnose Guitarfish (G. thouin) which occur locally. Separate data were also provided for 'Rhynchobatus djiddensis', which would represent Bottlenose Wedgefish and Smoothnose Wedgefish. Data source: Mohanraj et al. (2009). ‘Guitarfishes’ ‘Rhynchobatus djiddensis’ Year Landings (t) Year Landings (t) 2002 278.7 2002 114.9 2006 38.3 2006 14.9 Proportional decline over 3 GL Dataset too short to reliably derive equivalent population reduction over three generations Table 7. Proportional decline over 3 generation lengths (30–45 years) for wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes for Indonesia. Landings data are for the category 'whitespotted wedgefishes' which likely includes all rhinids occurring locally including Bowmouth Guitarfish (Rhina ancylostoma), Bottlenose Wedgefish (Rhynchobatus australiae), Clown Wedgefish (R. cooki), Eyebrow Wedgefish (R. palpebratus), and Broadnose Wedgefish (R. springeri), and may also include glaucostegids (in any case, the trends can be considered representative of glaucostegids as well as rhinids). Data sources: DGCF (2015, 2017). Year Landings (t) Year Landings (t) 2005 28,492 2005 28,492 2015 3,540 2015 3,540 Proportional decline over 11 years 0.876 0.876 Annual proportional change 0.827 0.827 Generation length (years) 10 15 3 generation lengths (3 GL; years) 30 45 Proportion remaining 0.003 0.0002 Proportional decline over 3 GL 0.997 0.9998 References Directorate General of Capture Fisheries (DGCF). (2015). Capture Fisheries Statistics of Indonesia. Directorate General of Capture Fisheries, Jakarta, Indonesia. Directorate General of Capture Fisheries (DGCF). (2017). Capture fisheries statistics of Indonesia by province. Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Jakarta, Indonesia. Vol. 17 No.1. ISSN: 1858-0505. 326 pp. Enajjar, S., Bradai, M.N. and Bouain, A. (2012). Age, growth and sexual maturity of the blackchin guitarfish Rhinobatos cemiculus in the Gulf of Gabès (southern Tunisia, central Mediterranean). Cahiers de Biologie Marine 53: 17–23. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2018). FAO Fishstat Capture Production Database 1950-2015. Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit. FAO, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en Last, P., White, W., de Carvalho, M., Séret, B., Stehmann, M. and Naylor, G. (2016). Rays of the World. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton. Mohanraj, G., Rajapackiam, S., Mohan, S., Batcha, H. and Gomathy, S. (2009). Status of elasmobranchs fishery in Chennai, India. Asian Fisheries Science 22: 607–615. Raje, S.G. and Zacharia, P.U. (2009). Investigations on fishery and biology of nine species of rays in Mumbai waters. Indian Journal of Fisheries 56: 95–101. White, J., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Tobin, A.J. and Heupel, M.R. (2014). Age and growth parameters of shark-like batoids. Journal of Fish Biology 84: 1340–1353. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fishing and Illegal Trade of the Angelshark DNA Barcoding
    Fisheries Research 206 (2018) 193–197 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres The fishing and illegal trade of the angelshark: DNA barcoding against T misleading identifications ⁎ Ingrid Vasconcellos Bunholia, Bruno Lopes da Silva Ferrettea,b, , Juliana Beltramin De Biasia,b, Carolina de Oliveira Magalhãesa,b, Matheus Marcos Rotundoc, Claudio Oliveirab, Fausto Forestib, Fernando Fernandes Mendonçaa a Laboratório de Genética Pesqueira e Conservação (GenPesC), Instituto do Mar (IMar), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Santos, SP, 11070-102, Brazil b Laboratório de Biologia e Genética de Peixes (LBGP), Instituto de Biociências de Botucatu (IBB), Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, 18618-689, Brazil c Acervo Zoológico da Universidade Santa Cecília (AZUSC), Universidade Santa Cecília (Unisanta), Santos, SP, 11045-907, Brazil ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Handled by J Viñas Morphological identification in the field can be extremely difficult considering fragmentation of species for trade Keywords: or high similarity between congeneric species. In this context, the shark group belonging to the genus Squatina is Conservation composed of three species distributed in the southern part of the western Atlantic. These three species are Endangered species classified in the IUCN Red List as endangered, and they are currently protected under Brazilian law, which Fishing monitoring prohibits fishing and trade. Molecular genetic tools are now used for practical taxonomic identification, parti- Forensic genetics cularly in cases where morphological observation is prevented, e.g., during fish processing. Consequently, DNA fi Mislabeling identi cation barcoding was used in the present study to track potential crimes against the landing and trade of endangered species along the São Paulo coastline, in particular Squatina guggenheim (n = 75) and S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography Database of Living/Fossil Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii, Holocephali) Papers of the Year 2016
    www.shark-references.com Version 13.01.2017 Bibliography database of living/fossil sharks, rays and chimaeras (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii, Holocephali) Papers of the year 2016 published by Jürgen Pollerspöck, Benediktinerring 34, 94569 Stephansposching, Germany and Nicolas Straube, Munich, Germany ISSN: 2195-6499 copyright by the authors 1 please inform us about missing papers: [email protected] www.shark-references.com Version 13.01.2017 Abstract: This paper contains a collection of 803 citations (no conference abstracts) on topics related to extant and extinct Chondrichthyes (sharks, rays, and chimaeras) as well as a list of Chondrichthyan species and hosted parasites newly described in 2016. The list is the result of regular queries in numerous journals, books and online publications. It provides a complete list of publication citations as well as a database report containing rearranged subsets of the list sorted by the keyword statistics, extant and extinct genera and species descriptions from the years 2000 to 2016, list of descriptions of extinct and extant species from 2016, parasitology, reproduction, distribution, diet, conservation, and taxonomy. The paper is intended to be consulted for information. In addition, we provide information on the geographic and depth distribution of newly described species, i.e. the type specimens from the year 1990- 2016 in a hot spot analysis. Please note that the content of this paper has been compiled to the best of our abilities based on current knowledge and practice, however,
    [Show full text]
  • Shark and Ray Products in the Processing Centres Of
    S H O R T R E P O R T ALIFA BINTHA HAQUE BINTHA ALIFA 6 TRAFFIC Bulletin Vol. 30 No. 1 (2018) TRAFFIC Bulletin 30(1) 1 May 2018 FINAL.indd 8 5/1/2018 5:04:26 PM S H O R T R E P O R T OBSERVATIONS OF SHARK AND RAY Introduction PRODUCTS IN THE PROCESSING early 30% of all shark and ray species are now designated as Threatened or Near Threatened with extinction CENTRES OF BANGLADESH, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This is a partial TRADEB IN CITES SPECIES AND understanding of the threat status as 47% of shark species have not CONSERVATION NEEDS yet been assessed owing to data deficiency (Camhi et al., 2009;N Bräutigam et al., 2015; Dulvy et al., 2014). Many species are vulnerable due to demand for their products Alifa Bintha Haque, and are particularly prone to unsustainable fishing practices Aparna Riti Biswas and (Schindler et al., 2002; Clarke et al., 2007; Dulvy et al., Gulshan Ara Latifa 2008; Graham et al., 2010; Morgan and Carlson, 2010). Sharks are exploited primarily for their fins, meat, cartilage, liver oil and skin (Clarke, 2004), whereas rays are targeted for their meat, skin, gill rakers and livers. Most shark catch takes place in response to demand for the animals’ fins, which command high prices (Jabado et al., 2015). Shark fin soup is a delicacy in many Asian countries—predominantly China—and in many other countries (Clarke et al., 2007). Apart from the fins being served in high-end restaurants, there is a demand for other products in different markets and by different consumer groups, and certain body parts are also used medicinally (Clarke et al., 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Chondrichthyan Fishes (Sharks, Skates, Rays) Announcements
    Chondrichthyan Fishes (sharks, skates, rays) Announcements 1. Please review the syllabus for reading and lab information! 2. Please do the readings: for this week posted now. 3. Lab sections: 4. i) Dylan Wainwright, Thursday 2 - 4/5 pm ii) Kelsey Lucas, Friday 2 - 4/5 pm iii) Labs are in the Northwest Building basement (room B141) 4. Lab sections done: first lab this week on Thursday! 5. First lab reading: Agassiz fish story; lab will be a bit shorter 6. Office hours: we’ll set these later this week Please use the course web site: note the various modules Outline Lecture outline: -- Intro. to chondrichthyan phylogeny -- 6 key chondrichthyan defining traits (synapomorphies) -- 3 chondrichthyan behaviors -- Focus on several major groups and selected especially interesting ones 1) Holocephalans (chimaeras or ratfishes) 2) Elasmobranchii (sharks, skates, rays) 3) Batoids (skates, rays, and sawfish) 4) Sharks – several interesting groups Not remotely possible to discuss today all the interesting groups! Vertebrate tree – key ―fish‖ groups Today Chondrichthyan Fishes sharks Overview: 1. Mostly marine 2. ~ 1,200 species 518 species of sharks 650 species of rays 38 species of chimaeras Skates and rays 3. ~ 3 % of all ―fishes‖ 4. Internal skeleton made of cartilage 5. Three major groups 6. Tremendous diversity of behavior and structure and function Chimaeras Chondrichthyan Fishes: 6 key traits Synapomorphy 1: dentition; tooth replacement pattern • Teeth are not fused to jaws • New rows move up to replace old/lost teeth • Chondrichthyan teeth are
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Classification of Elasmobranchs
    An introduction to the classification of elasmobranchs 17 Rekha J. Nair and P.U Zacharia Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi-682 018 Introduction eyed, stomachless, deep-sea creatures that possess an upper jaw which is fused to its cranium (unlike in sharks). The term Elasmobranchs or chondrichthyans refers to the The great majority of the commercially important species of group of marine organisms with a skeleton made of cartilage. chondrichthyans are elasmobranchs. The latter are named They include sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras. These for their plated gills which communicate to the exterior by organisms are characterised by and differ from their sister 5–7 openings. In total, there are about 869+ extant species group of bony fishes in the characteristics like cartilaginous of elasmobranchs, with about 400+ of those being sharks skeleton, absence of swim bladders and presence of five and the rest skates and rays. Taxonomy is also perhaps to seven pairs of naked gill slits that are not covered by an infamously known for its constant, yet essential, revisions operculum. The chondrichthyans which are placed in Class of the relationships and identity of different organisms. Elasmobranchii are grouped into two main subdivisions Classification of elasmobranchs certainly does not evade this Holocephalii (Chimaeras or ratfishes and elephant fishes) process, and species are sometimes lumped in with other with three families and approximately 37 species inhabiting species, or renamed, or assigned to different families and deep cool waters; and the Elasmobranchii, which is a large, other taxonomic groupings. It is certain, however, that such diverse group (sharks, skates and rays) with representatives revisions will clarify our view of the taxonomy and phylogeny in all types of environments, from fresh waters to the bottom (evolutionary relationships) of elasmobranchs, leading to a of marine trenches and from polar regions to warm tropical better understanding of how these creatures evolved.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of Wedgefish, Rhynchobatus Springeri
    Descriptions of new Borneo sharks and rays 77 $QHZVSHFLHVRIZHGJH¿VKRhynchobatus springeri 5K\QFKREDWRLGHL5K\QFKREDWLGDH IURPWKH:HVWHUQ3DFL¿F Leonard J.V. Compagno1 & Peter R. Last2 1 Shark Research Center, Iziko – Museums of Cape Town, Cape Town 8000, SOUTH AFRICA 2 CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research, Wealth from Oceans Flagship, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, TAS, 7001, AUSTRALIA ABSTRACT.—$QHZVSHFLHVRIZHGJH¿VKRhynchobatus springeri sp. nov. is described from specimens FROOHFWHGIURPWKH,QGR±0DOD\UHJLRQZLWKDFRQ¿UPHGUDQJHH[WHQGLQJIURPWKH*XOIRI7KDLODQGVRXWK to Java, and possibly westward to at least Sri Lanka. It is a medium-sized species to about 215 cm TL, with males reaching adulthood at about 110 cm TL. Rhynchobatus springeri closely resembles R. palpebratus in body shape and having a dark, eye-brow like marking on its orbital membrane, but differs from this species in having a lower vertebral count (113–126 vs. 130–139 total free centra), a broader preorbital snout, and more rows of white spots on the tail of adults. Other Rhynchobatus species in the region attain a much larger adult size, and have a relatively narrower snout and much higher vertebral counts. A revision of the group LVQHHGHGWR¿QGPRUHXVHIXO¿HOGFKDUDFWHUV Key words: Rhynchobatidae – Rhynchobatus springeri±%URDGQRVH:HGJH¿VK±QHZVSHFLHV±:HVWHUQ 3DFL¿F PDF contact: [email protected] INTRODUCTION Rhynchobatus by various authors, but only two, the West African R. luebberti Ehrenbaum, 1914 and the Indo– The genus Rhynchobatus Müller & Henle, 1837 :HVW3DFL¿FR. djiddensis (Forsskål, 1775), are generally comprises several species of moderate-sized to giant recognised as valid and most of the remaining taxa have (attaining between 0.8 and more than 3 m total length) been synonymised with R.
    [Show full text]
  • COVER PAGE: Title: Genomics to Aid Species Delimitation and Effective
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/767186; this version posted September 12, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. COVER PAGE: Title: Genomics to aid species delimitation and effective conservation of the Sharpnose Guitarfish (Glaucostegus granulatus). Authors: Shaili Johri1 (First Author) Sam Fellows1 Jitesh Solanki2 Anissa Busch1 Isabella Livingston1 Maria Fernanda Mora1 Anjani Tiwari3 Asha Goodman1 Adrian Cantu1 Michael P. Doane4 Megan Morris5 Robert A. Edwards1 Elizabeth A. Dinsdale 1 Author information: 1. Department of Biology 5500 Campanile Dr. San Diego State University San Diego, CA 92128 2. College of Fisheries Science Rajendra Bhuvan Road, Junagadh Agricultural University Veraval, Gujarat 362266, India. 3. Dept. of Biochemistry Maharaja Sayajirao University Baroda, India. 380015. 4. Sydney Institute of Marine Sciences 19 Chowder Bay Rd, Mosman, NSW 2095 5. Dept. of Biology Stanford University 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/767186; this version posted September 12, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Author Contributions: SJ contributed to concept, sampling, sequencing, Bioinformatics and wrote the manuscript, JS contributed to sampling, DNA extractions and sequencing, MMora, IL, AG and AB contributed to PCR and BOLD sequence alignments, ED contributed to concept and editing of the manuscript, SF did the phylogenetic analyses, AT contributed to molecular analyses, and community networks, to understand fisheries practices and for sampling logistics, AC and RE assisted with bioinformatics including basecalling and assembly, MMorris and MD assisted with sequence analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Science
    Western Indian Ocean JOURNAL OF Marine Science Volume 18 | Issue 1 | Jan – Jun 2019 | ISSN: 0856-860X Chief Editor José Paula Western Indian Ocean JOURNAL OF Marine Science Chief Editor José Paula | Faculty of Sciences of University of Lisbon, Portugal Copy Editor Timothy Andrew Editorial Board Lena GIPPERTH Aviti MMOCHI Sweden Tanzania Serge ANDREFOUËT Johan GROENEVELD France Cosmas MUNGA South Africa Kenya Ranjeet BHAGOOLI Issufo HALO Mauritius South Africa/Mozambique Nyawira MUTHIGA Kenya Salomão BANDEIRA Christina HICKS Mozambique Australia/UK Brent NEWMAN Betsy Anne BEYMER-FARRIS Johnson KITHEKA South Africa USA/Norway Kenya Jan ROBINSON Jared BOSIRE Kassim KULINDWA Seycheles Kenya Tanzania Sérgio ROSENDO Atanásio BRITO Thierry LAVITRA Portugal Mozambique Madagascar Louis CELLIERS Blandina LUGENDO Melita SAMOILYS Kenya South Africa Tanzania Pascale CHABANET Joseph MAINA Max TROELL France Australia Sweden Published biannually Aims and scope: The Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science provides an avenue for the wide dissem- ination of high quality research generated in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) region, in particular on the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources. This is central to the goal of supporting and promoting sustainable coastal development in the region, as well as contributing to the global base of marine science. The journal publishes original research articles dealing with all aspects of marine science and coastal manage- ment. Topics include, but are not limited to: theoretical studies, oceanography, marine biology and ecology, fisheries, recovery and restoration processes, legal and institutional frameworks, and interactions/relationships between humans and the coastal and marine environment. In addition, Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science features state-of-the-art review articles and short communications.
    [Show full text]
  • And Giant Guitarfish (Rhynchobatus Djiddensis)
    VIRAL DISCOVERY IN BLUEGILL SUNFISH (LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS) AND GIANT GUITARFISH (RHYNCHOBATUS DJIDDENSIS) BY HISTOPATHOLOGY EVALUATION, METAGENOMIC ANALYSIS AND NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING by JENNIFER ANNE DILL (Under the Direction of Alvin Camus) ABSTRACT The rapid growth of aquaculture production and international trade in live fish has led to the emergence of many new diseases. The introduction of novel disease agents can result in significant economic losses, as well as threats to vulnerable wild fish populations. Losses are often exacerbated by a lack of agent identification, delay in the development of diagnostic tools and poor knowledge of host range and susceptibility. Examples in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) and the giant guitarfish (Rhynchobatus djiddensis) will be discussed here. Bluegill are popular freshwater game fish, native to eastern North America, living in shallow lakes, ponds, and slow moving waterways. Bluegill experiencing epizootics of proliferative lip and skin lesions, characterized by epidermal hyperplasia, papillomas, and rarely squamous cell carcinoma, were investigated in two isolated poopulations. Next generation genomic sequencing revealed partial DNA sequences of an endogenous retrovirus and the entire circular genome of a novel hepadnavirus. Giant Guitarfish, a rajiform elasmobranch listed as ‘vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List, are found in the tropical Western Indian Ocean. Proliferative skin lesions were observed on the ventrum and caudal fin of a juvenile male quarantined at a public aquarium following international shipment. Histologically, lesions consisted of papillomatous epidermal hyperplasia with myriad large, amphophilic, intranuclear inclusions. Deep sequencing and metagenomic analysis produced the complete genomes of two novel DNA viruses, a typical polyomavirus and a second unclassified virus with a 20 kb genome tentatively named Colossomavirus.
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Checklist of Marine Fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the Proposed Extension of the Portuguese Continental Shelf
    European Journal of Taxonomy 73: 1-73 ISSN 2118-9773 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2014.73 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2014 · Carneiro M. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Monograph urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9A5F217D-8E7B-448A-9CAB-2CCC9CC6F857 Updated checklist of marine fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf Miguel CARNEIRO1,5, Rogélia MARTINS2,6, Monica LANDI*,3,7 & Filipe O. COSTA4,8 1,2 DIV-RP (Modelling and Management Fishery Resources Division), Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera, Av. Brasilia 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 3,4 CBMA (Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology), Department of Biology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] * corresponding author: [email protected] 5 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:90A98A50-327E-4648-9DCE-75709C7A2472 6 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:1EB6DE00-9E91-407C-B7C4-34F31F29FD88 7 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:6D3AC760-77F2-4CFA-B5C7-665CB07F4CEB 8 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:48E53CF3-71C8-403C-BECD-10B20B3C15B4 Abstract. The study of the Portuguese marine ichthyofauna has a long historical tradition, rooted back in the 18th Century. Here we present an annotated checklist of the marine fishes from Portuguese waters, including the area encompassed by the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf and the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The list is based on historical literature records and taxon occurrence data obtained from natural history collections, together with new revisions and occurrences.
    [Show full text]
  • UNEP/CMS/COP13/Doc.28.2.9 MIGRATORY 24 September 2019
    CONVENTION ON UNEP/CMS/COP13/Doc.28.2.9 MIGRATORY 24 September 2019 SPECIES Original: English 13th MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES Gandhinagar, India, 17 - 22 February 2020 Agenda Item 28.2 PROPOSAL FOR A CONCERTED ACTION FOR THE COMMON GUITARFISH (Rhinobatos rhinobatos) AND BOTTLENOSE WEDGEFISH (Rhynchobatus australiae) ALREADY ON APPENDIX II OF THE CONVENTION, AND THE FAMILIES RHINOBATIDAE AND GLAUCOSTEGIDAE Summary: The IUCN Shark Specialist Group has submitted the attached proposal for a Concerted Action for the Common Guitarfish (Rhinobatos rhinobatos) and Bottlenose Wedgefish (Rhynchobatus australiae), in accordance with the process elaborated in Resolution 12.28. In addition to the aforementioned CMS-listed species, the families Rhinobatidae, Rhinidae and Glaucostegidae are proposed for Concerted Action because of their similar conservation needs. *The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CMS Secretariat (or the United Nations Environment Programme) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The responsibility for the contents of the document rests exclusively with its author UNEP/CMS/COP13/Doc.28.2.9 PROPOSAL FOR A CONCERTED ACTION FOR THE COMMON GUITARFISH (Rhinobatos rhinobatos) AND BOTTLENOSE WEDGEFISH (Rhynchobatus australiae) ALREADY ON APPENDIX II OF THE CONVENTION, AND THE FAMILIES RHINOBATIDAE AND GLAUCOSTEGIDAE (i). Proponent: International Union For Conservation of Nature - IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group (IUCN SSG) The IUCN SSG has long been a trusted source of science-based information and advice on sharks and their relatives (Class Chondrichthyes: sharks, rays, and chimaeras) and provides leadership for the conservation of threatened species and populations of all chondrichthyan fishes.
    [Show full text]
  • Life-History Characteristics of the Eastern Shovelnose Ray, Aptychotrema Rostrata (Shaw, 1794), from Southern Queensland, Australia
    CSIRO PUBLISHING Marine and Freshwater Research, 2021, 72, 1280–1289 https://doi.org/10.1071/MF20347 Life-history characteristics of the eastern shovelnose ray, Aptychotrema rostrata (Shaw, 1794), from southern Queensland, Australia Matthew J. Campbell A,B,C, Mark F. McLennanA, Anthony J. CourtneyA and Colin A. SimpfendorferB AQueensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Agri-Science Queensland, Ecosciences Precinct, GPO Box 267, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia. BCentre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture and College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, 1 James Cook Drive, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia. CCorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract. The eastern shovelnose ray (Aptychotrema rostrata) is a medium-sized coastal batoid endemic to the eastern coast of Australia. It is the most common elasmobranch incidentally caught in the Queensland east coast otter trawl fishery, Australia’s largest penaeid-trawl fishery. Despite this, age and growth studies on this species are lacking. The present study estimated the growth parameters and age-at-maturity for A. rostrata on the basis of sampling conducted in southern Queensland, Australia. This study showed that A. rostrata exhibits slow growth and late maturity, which are common life- history strategies among elasmobranchs. Length-at-age data were analysed within a Bayesian framework and the von Bertalanffy growth function (VBGF) best described these data. The growth parameters were estimated as L0 ¼ 193 mm À1 TL, k ¼ 0.08 year and LN ¼ 924 mm TL. Age-at-maturity was found to be 13.3 years and 10.0 years for females and males respectively. The under-sampling of larger, older individuals was overcome by using informative priors, reducing bias in the growth and maturity estimates.
    [Show full text]